ERIC ED573359: Attendance Management in BC's K-12 Public Education System. BCTF Research Report. RR2016-01

0.72 MB·English

by  ERIC

RT2016-01

Attendance management in BC’s
K–12 public education system

bctf.ca/publications.aspx?id=5630

Charlie Naylor, Ph.D., Senior Researcher
January, 2016

BC Teachers’ Federation, 100 - 550 West 6th Avenue, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4P2
604-871-2283 • 1-800-663-9163 • Fax [phone] • bctf.ca
Acknowledgments
* Karen Rojem, BCTF Senior Information Specialist, for support in accessing relevant literature
* Anne Field, BCTF Research Assistant, for editing and formatting

2 BCTF Research January 2016
Introduction
Overreliance on absence figures as a measure of productivity can be counter-
productive, with unfavourable consequences for organisations and employees
alike. Baker-McClearn et al (2010)

Every BC school district has been mandated and funded (Appendix 2) to initiate attendance
management programs. Three ‘advisory’ and seven ‘pilot’ school districts have been announced
(Appendix 1). While the issue is evolving, this paper attempts to provide some background,
research, and details about the current proposals for attendance management in BC.
The rationale for introducing attendance management hinges on two claims. The first is that
attendance management will save BC’s public education system considerable amounts of money
by reducing teachers’ absences from work and therefore lower the costs of providing teachers
teaching on call (TTOC). These claims were made in two Deloitte reports, which are discussed
in the next section of this report. The second rationale is that BC teachers take more time off
work than do teachers in other provinces. BCTF research analysis of the details provided in the
Service Delivery Phase 1 report, which will also be discussed in this paper, concludes that the
report does not include sufficient methodological detail or fully-referenced data sources to
establish the validity of its claims on cost-savings of teacher absenteeism relative to other
provinces (see Appendix 3 for a more detailed explanation). What has been discovered to date is
that it is impossible to base the claims solely on Statistics Canada data. We will therefore argue
that the BC Public School Employers’ Association (BCPSEA) has launched the attendance
management initiative (with an initial expenditure of $3,700,000) with claims, but without
evidence that long-term costs will be reduced, and by making claims about teacher absences that
appear unsubstantiated and not based on the sources referenced.
The attendance management program is a hastily-launched initiative and, on the evidence to
date, appears to be a solution which has been imposed without any sense of whether there are
indeed issues regarding teachers’ health and wellness, and if so, how best to address them.
Instead of engaging in a constructive exploration of teachers’ health and well-being, attendance
management has been mandated as the solution, when the problem has not been adequately
considered through a thorough review of current teacher demographics to consider connections
between age and illness, or by accessing existing data and analyzing the research evidence in
areas such as presenteeism and absenteeism.

January 2016 BCTF Research 3
The introduction of attendance management in BC’s public
school system
Attendance management programs focusing on teachers have not historically been a feature of
the K–12 public education system in this or any other Canadian province. To the best of our
knowledge, only one Canadian province (New Brunswick) has introduced attendance
management for teachers in its jurisdiction, and this appeared around the same time as the BC
initiative.
The introduction of attendance management programs for BC teachers was proposed by the
accounting firm, Deloitte. The company’s website states:
Through economic booms and busts, Deloitte has been a trusted advisor to
governments in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public policies,
programs, and services. In these volatile economic times, delivering these public
programs and services within limited financial resources can become
challenging.1
Deloitte has published two reports on service delivery transformation for the BC Ministry of
Education. The first, BC Ministry of Education and School districts: Service Delivery
Transformation: Final Report (August 2012)2, proposed an ‘Attendance Support and Wellness
Project’ (p.21). The report claims that:
HR departments have the opportunity to save costs through increased service
levels in areas such as:
Attendance Support & Wellness and WorkSafe Claims Management
 Districts can save an estimated ~$10M–$12M in reduced replacement costs
through the implementation of a comprehensive, standardized Attendance
Support and Wellness program
 In addition, districts can save as much as ~$3M though a reduction in
WorkSafe premium rates (p.96)
No sources, data, or evidence of any kind are presented to justify the claims made concerning
replacement costs or WorkSafe premium savings. Such data and evidence may exist, but has not
been referenced or shared.
A second Deloitte report (July 2014)3, Ministry of Education: Service Delivery Transformation
Shared Services Implementation, provides details of ‘Health and Wellness Support’ (p. 30), of
which attendance management plays a major part.
Following the publication of the 2012 Deloitte report, a lead Service Delivery Project Committee
was formed, with five working groups. The Attendance Support, Wellness, and Occupational
Health and Safety Working Group, consisting of eight members, was formed in January of 2013,
and included superintendents, HR directors, and BCPSEA staff. In April 2014 it released the
Service Delivery Project Report of the Attendance Support, Wellness, and Occupational Health

1 http://www2.deloitte.com/ca/en/pages/public-sector/articles/fiscal-sustainability.html
2 First Deloitte report, August 2012 (confusingly called “Final report”, although another followed two years later):
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/kindergarten-to-grade-12/reports-and-
publications/deloitte_report_august_2012.pdf
3 Second Deloitte report, July 2014: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/kindergarten-to-
grade-12/reports-and-publications/deloitte_report_july_2014.pdf
4 BCTF Research January 2016
and Safety Working Group4. While the ethos of attendance management is characterized as
collaborative—reflected in statements that attendance management “needs to be a partnership
between the employers, employees and unions” (p. 11)—no union representatives appear to have
been members of the Working Group, and there is no obvious evidence that the BCTF was
consulted in terms of whether the union was interested in being a part of such a partnership.
So, the concept of attendance management for teachers is introduced by an accountancy firm,
subsequently mandated for every school district by an employers’ organization, and then funded
by government. All of these steps were taken without any union participation or agreement, yet
the Working Group states that their work is guided by a principle of partnership with unions.
This reflects a curious view of partnership, in which the so-called partnership starts after all the
key decisions have been made.
Further reporting from the Working Group was included in the October 2014 Service Delivery
Project Phase 1 Report5 of the Service Delivery Project Committee (pp. 44–51). Here, the
Working Group estimated the annual cost of replacement staffing in BC’s schools at $154M,
with days absent due to illness costing $35.8M, and the cost of illness/disability combined at
$122M annually. They also claimed that the average days absent due to illness in BC’s K–12
schools are greater than the national average, by 3.25 days per employee:
The Group determined that the average days absent due to illness is greater than
the national averages for the K–12 sector, as reported by Statistics Canada, by
3.25 days per employee, which equates to an estimated annual cost of $35.8
million. (p.46)
While the Phase 1 report states that the data are ‘as reported by Statistics Canada’, no source
references were provided. On checking the relevant StatCan data, it became clear that the claim
made by the Working Group could not be based solely on StatCan data. On further inquiry, the
author was informed that the claim was made on a combination of StatCan data and school
district data which are in the possession of BCPSEA. This data has not been accessed to date.
The chart below provides a summary relating to attendance support (p.13):

4 http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/kindergarten-to-grade-12/service-delivery-
project/final_attendance_report_april_23_2014.pdf
5 http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/kindergarten-to-grade-12/service-delivery-
project/sdpc_phase_1_report_october_2014.pdf
January 2016 BCTF Research 5
Summary of Project Plan and Accomplishments
Savings Offered or
Description Purpose Deliverables Project Completion
Forecasted
Attendance Provide advice on Attendance Support, Report issued in May, Estimated savings in
support, policies, procedures Wellness and 2014 replacement staff
Wellness and and programs and Occupational Safety costs of $35 million if
Provided
Occupational data requirements to options and operating at the
recommendations on
Safety improve employee strategies are offered national average sick
principles to build
wellness and to schools districts leave rate
common policies and
occupational safety with clear
procedures and There is a cost of
for consideration by operational plans for
recommended establishing
school districts. implementation,
attendance support appropriate data
draft policies and
programs to use as collection and
procedures and a
examples providing shared
draft business plan to
expertise to operate
be used to evaluate Recommended pilot
the program
participation districts undertake
this work with the
assistance of the
project

The two Deloitte reports, the Working Group report, and the Phase 1 report, leave little doubt
that the major considerations for proposing attendance management programs are financial, with
the key claim that implementing attendance management will reduce incidences of the number of
days teachers and support staff are absent from work, and therefore reduce TTOC and other
replacement costs.
The Phase 1 report states that the proposals would create “a system-wide solution that can be
well understood by employees, BCTF and support staff unions and management” (p.50). It also
states that the Attendance Support, Wellness and Occupational Health and Safety Working
Group would “support the pilots in working with BCTF and CUPE unions” (p.14), statements
which imply BCTF acceptance of and support for attendance management programs.
The report argues that partnerships with unions are crucial and that it is important to be “working
in cooperation with unions and within collective agreements—local relationships are important”
(p.47).
In addition to the implied BCTF acceptance considered above, the language in this report
explicitly states that implementation needs to be a partnership. This appears unlikely, however,
in view of the motion passed by the May 2015 BCTF Representative Assembly:
Attendance Management programs
That the BCTF take action against the implementation of Attendance
Management programs by:
1. continuing to emphasize to government the real stressors in teaching and the
need for meaningful supports that foster healthy workplaces and good
employee/employer relations.
2. continuing to actively communicate to members information about existing
BCTF Health & Wellness programs.
3. providing information to members that includes:
a. backgrounder details on the Ministry “Service Delivery Transformation
Project.”
6 BCTF Research January 2016
b. accurate statistics and data about the use of sick time by teachers in public
education.
c. details about past arbitrations and union opposition to Attendance
Management.
4. providing protocols and advice to locals in anticipation of management/
employer inquiries about non-culpable absenteeism.
5. communicating with members about Right to Representation clauses.
6. providing advice to locals about possible grievances arising from the program.
7. providing communications information to locals regarding medical privacy
jurisprudence.
8. encouraging co-ordinating efforts between school district unions to oppose
Attendance Management programs. (BCTF Spring RA Minutes, pp. 9–10)
Although this BCTF Representative Assembly took place a year after the publication of the
Working Group report (April 2014), it appears there was some awareness on the part of the
authors at the time that the needed partnership for successful implementation is not a given. In
one very brief and unexplored section on risks, three potential risks are suggested:
 Employers and Employee Representatives will not agree on implementation
 Employee absenteeism is not reduced
 Employees do not feel supported (p. 22)
The first stated risk is that employers and unions will not, in fact, agree on implementation,
suggesting a partnership lacking in any consensus. Then, despite claims that reduced absenteeism
would be inevitable once attendance management is introduced, the second stated risk is that
absenteeism may not be reduced. And, finally, with regular claims about how much the
attendance management programs will respect and support employees, a third risk is that those
employees may not feel supported.
Close to $4M has been invested for the initial implementation of attendance management,
without any real exploration of the potential risks that it might fail. How significant are such
risks? We simply don’t know, yet collectively they would, if realized, negate the concept and the
investment made to impose the program across BC. By not exploring risks, the authors of the
report expose a significant flaw in promoting a program that, as its proponents state, may
actually fail. Such a failure would be expensive in terms of both financial costs, and the reduced
management-teacher trust which would likely ensue after attempts to use management powers to
enforce attendance requirements.
Several of the above-referenced reports, and additional related information, can be found on the
Ministry of Education ‘Service Delivery Project’ web page.6

6 http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-training/administration/kindergarten-to-grade-12/service-delivery-
project
January 2016 BCTF Research 7
Where is attendance management utilized elsewhere in BC
and in other K–12 public education systems?
Multiple organizations have introduced attendance management programs. In BC they include
the University of BC (UBC), health-care employers, and some municipalities. UBC’s program
does not apply to its academics—support staff and maintenance staff appear to be the primary
areas of focus. Health-care employers have targeted nurses and hospital support staff. These and
other targets of attendance management suggest there may be both a class and a gender bias with
regard to attendance management, in that lower-paid and female public-sector workers may be
more likely to be subject to attendance management programs. UBC does not concern itself with
the attendance of its professors, and although health authorities appear not to check on doctors’
attendance rates, nurses appear to be a clear target for attendance management programs.
There has been union resistance from the BC Nurses’ Union (BCNU) to health sector attendance
management initiatives. The BCNU website has an unequivocal stance and provides advice to its
members on the issue:
BCNU is strongly opposed to attendance management programs, officially known
as ‘attendance wellness promotion’ programs’ or AWP/APP. As implemented by
some employers, the programs try to force nurses to work when they’re sick under
the threat of intimidation, harassment and discipline.
Nurses, as health care professionals, are able to make decisions related to their
own health and the safety of their patients, clients and residents.7
Elsewhere in Canada, the New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal of Friday, September 25, 2015
reported on the introduction of a $1.2M attendance management program in that province’s K–
12 education system. As yet, no other provincial K–12 teacher attendance management programs
have been identified.
Arbitrations and court cases which have focused on
attendance management
While a complete search of arbitration rulings has not been conducted by BCTF Research to
date, the following suggest limits and parameters have been set in some cases.
The following Health Sciences Association press release reflects both the scope of attendance
management, and limits placed on it by one arbitration ruling.
January 21, 2013
Health care unions have won a significant victory protecting the rights of sick and
injured workers who were being punished by Vancouver Coastal Health.
In 2008 the health authority introduced an offensive and punitive attendance
management program that the unions said unfairly punished employees who use
sick leave. The unions, including HSA, BCGEU, CUPE, HEU and UFCW filed a
multi-union grievance against the program.

7 https://www.bcnu.org/contracts-and-bargaining/challenging-attendance-management
8 BCTF Research January 2016
The unions challenged the employer’s assertion that it could unilaterally impose
overtime bans, reduce FTE status, and even terminate employees they deemed to
have taken too much paid sick time.
The unions argued that these penalties rendered the Attendance and Wellness
Promotion Program (AWP) invalid, as they breached the BC Labour Relations
Code, as well as longstanding principles of labour law.
Friday, Arbitrator Vince Ready agreed with the unions’ position and ordered that:
 the automatic overtime ban, FTE reduction, and non-culpable termination of
employment be eliminated from the AWP;
 employees who had been subjected to overtime bans or FTE reductions have
those punishments removed immediately.
Ready noted several times throughout his written decision that it is both
ineffective and inappropriate for employers to punish employees whose absence is
due to circumstances beyond their control.8
An Ontario arbitration9 found that:
...an attendance management program must display the following characteristics
in order to withstand scrutiny at arbitration:
 there must be no conflict between the provisions of the program and those of
the collective agreement;
 the program must be administrative and remedial in nature, not disciplinary;
 the program must be reasonable in its design, and must be applied in a
reasonable manner; and
 the program must be consistent with human rights law.
In City of Windsor v. CUPE, Local 543 (March 11, 2002), the employer’s
program failed in all key respects, with the result that it was declared null and
void by a majority of a board of arbitration. This ruling was made despite the fact
that no employee had been disciplined or terminated under the program during the
more than ten years that it had been in effect.
Humphrey (2011) stated:
Adjudicators have demonstrated their preparedness to review the
“reasonableness” of an employer’s Attendance Management Program, and its
consistencies with human rights guarantees. The outcomes of those challenges
suggest that many employers are unsuccessfully walking the line between
supportable attendance management and discrimination based on disability. (p.9)
An analysis of the 2010 Court of Appeal case Coast Mountain Bus Company Ltd v. National
Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers of Canada (CAW Canada), Local
111, 2010, stated that such actions constituted systemic discrimination when applied to workers
with disabilities:

8 http://www.hsabc.org/news/health-sciences-association-wins-challenge-health-authoritys-punitive-attendance-
management-program
9 http://www.ehlaw.ca/publications/jul02/windsor.shtml
January 2016 BCTF Research 9
Employees were told that they must not exceed the workplace average for
absenteeism in either of the next two years or there would be grounds for
dismissal, which was also found to be systemic discrimination.10
Current attendance management in BC school districts
While it has proved difficult to access official funding estimates, one school district’s website
published11 what appear to be Ministry funding allocations for Attendance Management
programs. Three ‘advisory’ and seven ‘pilot’ districts have been identified to initiate attendance
management approaches. The three ‘advisory’ districts (funding received in brackets) are:
 SD # 36–Surrey ($435,161)
 SD # 39–Vancouver ($324,505)
 SD # 61–Victoria ($118,800)
The seven pilot districts (funding received in brackets) are:
 SD # 34–Abbotsford ($120,906)
 SD # 35–Langley ($121,729)
 SD # 41–Burnaby ($148,977)
 SD # 51–Boundary ($25,000)
 SD # 57–Prince George ($81,536)
 SD # 59–Peace River South ($25,000)
 SD # 72–Campbell River ($33,277)
It appears that the difference between ‘advisory’ and ‘pilot’ districts is that the three advisory
districts have received substantial funding and are expected to share information and advice to
the pilot districts.
To date, two BC school districts (Victoria and Surrey) have produced information concerning
their attendance management (or attendance support) approach. The Greater Victoria School
District’s publication12 includes the following:
Our mission is attainable when employees of the District are healthy and well, and
thus able to perform in their job role to the best of their abilities. Further to this,
regular and consistent attendance allows an employee to apply their valuable set
of skills and knowledge to the workplace, which helps the District’s mandate to
be realized. (p.2)
The Victoria report outlines three key areas:
 Attendance support
 Disability management
 Wellness initiatives
It also stresses that the district will “encourage accountability for work attendance” and that they
will “work with individual employees who are having difficulty maintaining regular attendance.”

10 Bull Houser. (October 19, 2010). Using attendance management programs in light of Coast Mountain Bus
Company Ltd. v. CAW Canada, Local 11, 2010 BCCA 447: https://www.bht.com/resources/using-attendance-
management-programs-light-coast-mountain-bus-company-ltd-v-caw-canada
11 See appendices 1 and 2.
12 Attendance support: A conversation based approach: Our plan. (June 2014). https://district.public.sd61.bc.ca/wp-
content/uploads/sites/91/2015/01/SD61-Attendance-Support-Program.pdf
10 BCTF Research January 2016